Darn kids and their Muggle clothes

[sunnyskywalker]

I read some comment somewhere that quoted the bit from GoF that said Molly and Arthur didn't wear Muggle clothes, but their kids did on holidays. This person positied a cultural shift, where the younger generation is more comfortable with Muggle stuff than the older ones, which sounds reasonable. With a quarter of the school being Muggle-born and half being half-blood, it would be pretty weird if none of the kids ever wore jeans on the holidays. (I'm guessing the statistics were more in the purebloods' favor decades ago. Or if not, that there was an even bigger effort to reeducate the kids once they got to Hogwarts. Or something.)

This reminded me of another comment somewhere (yeah, I'm good at remembering where I heard things today!) that wondered whether Muggle culture is to wizards as hip-hop culture is to rich white kids. Hey, look at Bill and his "Muggle rock concert" getup. Can't you just imagine a twelve-year-old Bill thinking he's so rebellious and hip for wearing a t-shirt? And Molly yelling at him to stop dressing like a criminal lowlife and put on some proper robes? And what about Tonks shopping in a little rebellious, counterculture shop for that Weird Sisters t-shirt? (See, the Weird Sisters know the youth market! They're cool!)

Of course, you really can't make wizarding clothing make sense. Robes, but Muggle-style sweaters? Pants or no pants? Pureblood Neville wears them under his robes, Snape only wears (wore? might have changed his habits after that) underpants, and that guy at the Quidditch World Cup wears nothing. If even adult wizards understand sweaters (and maybe pants), why do they have such trouble dressing like Muggles? Couldn't Arthur have just worn one of Molly's sweaters and a pair of Bill's or somebody's jeans to the QWC and not had to ask Harry if he looked all right? And he's supposed to be the Muggle expert...

And what do they all wear to the train station? I really doubt the Ministry would insist people try to dress like Muggles to get to a bunch of fields in the middle of nowhere for the QWC, but let swarms of wizards into one very public and crowded train station in their robes. So really, shouldn't Arthur and Molly have the hang of Muggle clothing by now? Shouldn't the past several generations have figured it out just from the yearly trips?

Bah.

Comments

[sollersuk.livejournal.com]

This is a topic that has been bothering me for some time, too! The appearance of the Weasleys in the first book seems to be the necessary cover for getting to the Hogwarts Express. I can't remember off-hand how long it's been running, but certainly not before the mid 19th century. However, that would mean that many of the older generation (even if wizards have really staggering longevity) would have travelled by it, and it is hard to see how they could be quite so confused about Muggle clothes if they had ever had to make their way to the station dressed as Muggles.

Of course, if the Hogwarts Express is a much later innovation, fewer people would have had the experience, but I would have expected the Weasleys to have had to make the Kings Cross trip on their own account; parents might be able to come up with some kind of illusion to confuse Muggles, but not the pupils, and in the case of the current generation it is specified that they change their clothes on the train. You are perfectly right; Arthur should have some kind of clue by now about jeans and sweaters if only from looking at his offspring - particularly since he is such a Muggle enthusiast. Admittedly his big thing is Muggle artefacts, but, uh, clothes with things like zips? Wouldn't that fascinate him?

Normal wizarding wear (and the films are a confusing issue here) appears to need nothing worn underneath - cue for kilt joke - though one might wear underpants; certainly not trousers. I am very confused by the sweaters Molly Weasley knits them - unless they are to be worn over the robes, which seems ridiculous.

[sunnyskywalker]

Maybe they're really long, robe-like sweaters? But Harry doesn't mention that they look at all unusual, so I doubt it. And since F & G shoved Percy's over his head at Christmas in the first book, it does seem like they're supposed to go over the robes, which does seem ridiculous.

So when Peeves says he'll set the kids' pants on fire, and Neville changes his pants, he means underpants? Must work on my Britishisms. That possibility slipped right by me. I only have the American editions, and they're pretty inconsistent in what they "translate" and what they don't, so it gets confusing sometimes.